It's pleasing to see some interest. Thank you.
As suggested, I have written some ideas and nicked some web space from a site I manage for now. You can read it HERE. If it develops into something bigger, I will consider building a proper site for it, but for now, feel free to comment on this blog.
Keep it coming people - it is all grist to the mill.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
That's going to take some time to think about! (and I'm putting in a new shower just now, so blogging time is limited.
As you know, I've advocated a confederal uk for some time.
I still think is the most probable solution to the UK's constitutional dissonance, but Simon Heffer's recent article, and much of the language used in the English Press, and on NR's blog leads me to suspect that Scotland may have already gone, by the time that English thinking has gone beyond the implicit racism or puzzled bemusement that I often see.
Of course, I may also be paranoid :-)
Monarchy
I agree with the sense of what you say.
As you would expect I'll offer a distinctively Scottish view!
People talk about The Union of the Crowns in 1603. That was actually the first of these. The second (and more relevant) Union of the Crowns was in 1689, since that was based on the "contractual" theory of monarchy in Scotland.
Any restructuring of the UK has to take into account the reality that there are two wholly different sets of constitutional law, and both need to be recognised and accommodated in any new settlement.
They wouldn't affect the actual functioning of the monarchy (I'm instinctively republican, but a neutered monarchy is fine with me, and damned good for tourism).
However, I can't see effective constitutional reform occurring, while England sticks with "Parliamentary Sovereignty" which includes the monarchy as the proper term for Parliament is "the Queen in Parliament", while our tradition is that sovereignty lies with the people.
Yes, I agree on both counts.
As far as the negativity of the English media goes, if it has all gone too far for the Scots, then the Union is a busted flush anyway and the sooner we break it up the better.
As regards parliamentary sovereignty, I had assumed that this would be the natural victim of the end of the Commons in its current form and that sovereignty would by default be returned to the people where it rightly belongs. This would be written into my constitution anyway.
Church of England - not my concern, but I have obvious objections to the presence of CoE bishops in the HoL - quite unacceptable.
Second Chamber
I'm wary of unicameral legislatures, (especially if elected by non PR systems) too much danger of an agenda not supported by a majority of the population being rammed through.
I've thought about this mainly in a Scottish context. We are a disparate group (as is England) and I would want a Scottish Senate (6 year period in office - 1/3 up for election every 2 years as per the US)where the representation was skewed to prevent domination of the north and south by the Central Belt. In England a similar construct would presumably be designed to protect against domination by London and the SE.
Since the Senates in each of the countries would not be the primary legislating chambers, it should be possible for them to arrange joint meetings (in York/Liverpool?) This joint Senate could even be the main UK chamber?
Scotland has a Supreme Court the College of Justice which includes the High Court of Justiciary (criminal cases - no further appeal from this to the UK "Supreme Court") and the Court of Session (civil law - appeal to the UK Supreme Court possible. However, there has always been resistance to that possibility appeal to a UK level, and there have been powerful argments from our senior lawyers that the UK Supreme Court breaches the Treaty of Union). Any reformed UK needs to recognise the different legal systems (England has a common law system, while Scotland's is based on civil law). If there is to be a political UK, then any UK Supreme Court should exist only to interpret the Federal/Confederal aspects of the codified UK constitution.
Written Constitution
There is a huge myth in England that the constitution is "unwritten". It's not. The written constitution simply has never been codified. Scots Law (including constitutional law) was codified in the late 17th century - along European lines. The English Commissioners negotiating the Union understood the critical issue of Scots Law, and agreed to write its protection into the Treaty.
Any revised UK will involve a renegotiation of the Treaty of Union, and that will need to recognise the right of the nationalities to self-determination. Fairly easy for the English to allow the Scots to have, but the Welsh are subject to English law etc through right of war. Heaven knows how a revised UK would accommodate the split communities of Northern Ireland. Would the DUP accept the idea that the people of that province could democratically decide to exercise self-determination and rejoin Ireland and leave the UK?
Revenue
A Federal system allows for a Federal taxation system. I prefer a system by which each nation has fiscal autonomy, and determines for itself how it will raise the revenue required for the common purposes you suggest. I would support a system of support for "poorer" nations. (Even with the depletion of oil revenues through the insanity of UK Goverments over tyhe last 30 years, I suspect Scotland would be a net contributor). Should there be some system to ensure that such cross national funding is "properly" spent? My (perhaps ignorant) observations about English spending, is that London gets much more per capita spend than eg Cornwall.
Any revised UK should also open negotiations with the Channel islands and the Isle of Man to allow them to join the new "less than Incorporating" Union.
Implement Schengen - unquestioable.
It might be worth specifically inviting certain BBC posters to contribute. For example fubar_saunders on NR's blog has expressed a willingness to re-examine the UK constitution (after prodding by one of my compatriots).
But it's your blog and I don't want to send invitations to others without your approval.
I am not sure quite how to go about inviting others selectively. I have written to those with whom I am in email contact but if you have other contacts, feel free. I am a bit reluctant to go completely public because I really don't want to be constantly moderating abuse from airheads.
You are quite right about the unwritten constitution in the sense that there is a body of primary legislation dating from the Act of Union through the Acts of 1689, 1715 and 1832 and onwards which, taken together can be said to be a de facto constitution but it is not set in stone and the frequency with which the legislature at the behest of the executive bends the rules is, I think, sufficient cause for concern that it should be codified.
As regards the English Senate, I like your idea and there is certainly a case for it meeting regionally. As you say, England is more my patch than yours and the reverse is true for me with Scotland but connections in the Highlands tell me that there is widespread disenchantment with the dominance of the central region. I assume the same would be true for the Islands and the Borders. Could it be that the West Lothian Question has not so much been resolved as localised?
I appreciate that you have other things on your mind but, if you want to gather your thoughts into a single document, I will hapilly publish alongside mine. If the project snowballs, I will build an interactive website to accommodate it.
I'm involved in some early discussions about creating a similar discussion forum on Scottish issues. What seems to be quite a good suggestion for inviting people to join is to have a secure page for invitees to post the text that they will subsequently post on a BBC (or other)website. When that text subsequently appears under their username, it's a fair bet that they are who they say they are.
Next time they hit your site, they would be sent to the discussion page.
I have no idea about the technicalities of this!
It can be done quite effectively with a bit of time and effort and I do have spare server capacity but I would like to judge the level of support before dipping into the petty cash too deeply..
I also note that the blog site "View from North Britain http://northbritain.wordpress.com/ has now got a password protected post
Yeah. All these things depend on making demands on the time of the poor bloody idiot who runs it!
Hello,
I seem to have found this site. I prodded Fuber_Saunders by the way. (It wasn't that hard, they are all pig sick of the two lame horse race that has long time strangled Westminster...)
Before I go and pass on my agreements and disagreements, I shall test post this first!
cmonscotland is my livejournal ID.
My normal ID for BBC blogs and elsewhere is:
aye_write
Hi aye-write. We meet again.
Aye_write wrote (funny ID)
I am pretty much in agreement with the following points:
1. On monarchy
Retain a 'fit for purpose' monarchy. Tourism is a plus with it, but I would like to know, generally, how much revenue it generates (rough estimation) and relate it to how much it costs! So, yes I am suggesting an audit of the monarchy :-D
An insane idea for you: get one of them, to become King or Queen of Scots (but which one?) and start a new branch eventually set to become the Scottish Royal family – I’m not convinced about this!
cmonscotland
Maybe my mind is playing tricks but was there not something about Princess Anne having a special role in Scotland some years back?
aye_write wrote:
Hi oldnat,
Is that good!
(That I am I stalking you or you are stalking me!
;-P)
aye_write wrote:
Re Princess Anne
I'm too young! Bet there's a connection with one of them somewhere though...
aye_write wrote:
On The Church of England:
I don’t care much for it, as I don’t care much for a football team. Religion I’m afraid should have nothing to do with government, or education (except for a description of concepts etc.) for that matter.
The Scottish Kirk, as would be my concern, can slip away to the sidelines as far as having anything to do with legislature is concerned. Fair enough it has areas of influence and let those who wish to be, be influenced, But to have some ‘say’ in politics is entirely overstepping the mark, in my opinion!
aye_write wrote:
On The House of Lords:
I accept your reasons for seeking to have some sort of moderating chamber. As for how members are appointed, I don’t have enough info. to criticise. I do though perhaps reckon that they should be ‘recruited’ from known bases of excellence such as, I don’t know, universities? Point being to determine where these sensible and smart people are and hunt them down from there!
aye_write wrote:
On The Honours System:
What's the point again?
It's got to be PR, international PR. That's about the only use I can think if for it!
aye_write
As you probably realise, I nowadays live in Eastern Europe. I am not sure whether you will remember since it was quickly forgotten in the west but three years ago there were riots in Hungary because of a leaked confession that government had been 'lying' about the state of the economy.
One of the suggestions that emerged was the possibility of a 'government of experts'. It fell flat on it's face because of the thorny problem of democratic accountability. The sad truth is that, on the rare occasions we are given the opportunity to elect a government, we tend to elect a bunch of idiots. How much worse would it be if the idiots were not elected?
If the "experts" are to be economists, then the current crisis suggests they were getting vastly overpaid!
There was a lot of speculation that when Anne moved to Scotland, supported Scotland at Rugby (her son played for the Scottish schools) and was seen to sing Flower of Scotland at Internationals, that the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was positioning itself to provide an acceptable Scottish monarch.
Better than her Aunt Margaret! My cousin (then in the Met) had to remove her from a night club in London where she was dancing naked on a table! He said his tunic had never been so interestingly used!
aye_write wrote:
re elections and riots
True! I didn't know.
I have a theory that those who go into politics, or seek fame in general, have egos too big to be serviced by just their immediate family, friends etc. So, if someone is going into it, they have to first realise this or they will quickly and rightly be eaten alive!
Don't think many do realise though ;-)
aye_write wrote
oldnat,
That's funny! Is there anything you don't know!
(Sorry, threnodio, I am a bit of a groupie - he is an old NAT.)
We could Scottish-ise some new monarchy couldn't we!
I assume there would be string pullers in the background who would have to be got round...
God, I remember your cousin!
I always wondered who the naked woman was.
threnodio
You will have noticed that aye-write and I have a tendency to lower the tone of any discussion!
I've started work on a text outlining how I see Scotland playing a role in a reformed UK, without sacrificing our "autonomous nationality".
aye_write wrote:
On The Westminster Machine etc.
I would get rid! Replace with English parliament in an independent England. Best for them as it removes, I would hope, the poison of FPTP and gets them into some interesting government, like Scotland and others in Europe (I think I am right in saying.)
You know I don't like this proposal of a confederal system much, yet! I've looked at your list of how the powers are handled, and I cannot come up with reasons why it would be advantagous to pool these over four nations and not just have the representative departments from each of the four nations working together. To me that would be the standard and I cannot see why it would be better to emalgamate here, perhaps with the exception of counter terrorism. Basically, I would begin with the premise that each nation would control their own and then look at each proposal for emalgamation in turn to examine whether it would in fact produce a benefit.
aye-write
I'll actually be saying much the same thing - only in a much more long-winded way1
aye_write wrote:
Well, I just don't even try to sound important!
;-)
aye_write wrote:
On the rest:
I am a bit confused as to what is the best picture :-D
I think I like the magistrate's warrant, the Habeus Corpus and the liability for any abuse of authority.
Not sure whether any shared soveriegnty could run smoothly. Right now I couldn't care less and could quite do without it (easy life)!
...We would need to avoid fights. They would be looming round every corner...
So if any is arranged however, it would need to be done so on an extremely clear and simple basis - kind of the opposite to the EU! (It needs cleaning out, like your kitchen cupboards.)
I need to give it some thought.
Right the beer is talking here and I am ever closer to letting oldnat down :-(
Still there is no need of his cousin's cloak yet or anything...
;-)
threnodio.
I don't agree with all aspects of it, and it's not strictly relevant to your theme, but a link to the SNP's draft constitution for an Independent Scotland can be found at http://home2.btconnect.com/tipiglen/blankweb.html
Might be worth copying and posting here.
Sorry not to have made a contribution to this sooner, but it's been a much busier month so far than I was expecting. Following some interesting comments on Brian Taylor's blog last night, I've managed to give it a little more thought with the following:
I wonder whether Dave C's conversion to elected mayors and local referenda could show us a way?
One of the big problems of the "Westmidden" model is that it creates an elective dictatorship while one of the common criticisms of the fairer "Holyrood" model is that it makes for "weak" governance.
As a fan of the Swiss system of direct democracy and the US separation of powers, I wonder whether we could achieve this by using an improved version of the "London" model? Not only does it seem popular with Londoners but quite a few politicians seem to like it too, as it gives the incumbent real power. This may well be the key to making constitutional change happen.
As last tinkered with in 2008, it produces an elected executive mayor [via a Playskool version of STV] and a small, 25-member elected assembly [via a system similar to Holyrood] to hold him or her to account.
That basic model could be replicated at council, national and possibly federal level to reduce the number of professional politicians, a meaningful way of holding them to account and to give party leaders at those levels adequate executive power to run his or her bailiwick effectively. All should have fixed terms.
Like oldnat, I think a revising chamber is essential, but one such could do the job for the state (or the nation if the UK goes the way of all flesh) - an economy of scale of which northhighlander might approve. As a republican, I would prefer a senate, but a 100% elected lords would do. Re the monarchy, I think more tourist revenue would be generated if rich tourists could pay for the privilege of sleeping in the royal bed at Balmoral or Windsor Castle, but a Dutch-style monarchy would not bother me.
Dave C's idea of local referenda on budgets should be beefed up by simply setting a trigger (10% of the electorate?) for calling them, and should also include US-style "recall" referenda to shorten the term of the executive. There's also no reason why all the elections should not be by proper STV, allowing the electorate to choose between candidates of the same party instead of the party bosses.
Obviously, to make this workable in a UK context, an English FM and Assembly would need to be created and the directly-elected UK PM would need executive power only over areas like defence and foreign affairs. Failing that, Scotland could adopt the model but with a small Scottish senate - needing no more senators and assembly members than the total of MSPs at Holyrood now.
Browndov - thank you.
At a local government level your ideas are very appealing. I find myself resisting the idea of a directly elected PM, however. The problem is how you hold him/her to account. At least at present parliament, if it had any guts, could force a motion of no confidence. I suspect that a directly elected head of government would lead to fixed terms and either lame duck administrations or still more centralised executive power.
None of this can be addressed until we confront the core issue of parliamentary sovereignty. My belief is that a large proportion of the electorate are disillusioned with parliament which is seen as a talking shop of yes-people doing the executives bidding - which is no kind of democracy at all. The problem is that Parliament remains the supreme authority. Referenda, for example, become meaningless all the time parliament can simply overrule the result.
Oldnat will be quick to point out that this does not apply in Scotland where sovereignty is vested in the people. I think the Scottish process is working quite well, not because Westminster got it right - indeed they got a lot wrong - but because the Scots are making it work. People are engaged in a way that they are not in England.
Our Dave shows symptoms of being a tinkerer and that is last thing that is needed. The time for tweaking is long over and only wholesale reform will rescue the system from what, to me, is beginning to look like terminal decline.
Thank you for your interest. I was hoping for a broader spread of opinion before moving on but I may develop my ideas further in the next few days.
One thing about which we seem broadly to agree is the monarchy with which I personally have no problem. It is surprisingly similar to the Dutch model in practice. If the nation owned all the palaces, castles and estates, there might be cause for concern but given that the Civil List is quite tightly controlled and the monarch personally owns most of the estates associated with her and is a tax paying citizen is good enough for me. As a matter of fact, I am inclined to think at the moment that it is one of the very few constitutional elements which is working quite well and - as the actress probably said to the bishop - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I think we're agreed on more than the monarchy.
We agree on the need for a revising chamber and not just a unicameral structure (I think the SNP are naive to imagine that a Supreme Court is sufficient. They still tend to fall into that old Scottish trap of "if it's not English ,,,,,).
We agree on the UK continuing to be part of the EU (and becoming part of Schengen) - even though I want to see Scotland independently represented, I can see the usefulness of creating a structure that uses an almost "fictional" UK as a transition technique, and let Belgium be the first member state to "fracture", and to create the solution.
Despite my loathing of "Parliamentary Sovereignty", I can't see any English/UK politicians wanting to give that up. It gives them more power than they would have in any other country. On NR's blog, there has actually been a lot of opposition to it, but it's been unfocussed (I don't think the English have any concept of their constitution) and has even extended to using Lizzie to lead the army in a constitutional coup.
While, obviously, bloggers are not representative of the people they come from, I am deeply worried by the obsession (I do think it's worse in England than in Scotland) for "strong leadership". Therefore, in any UK structure I would oppose having a directly elected PM.
I am sorry to say that the English have pretty much given up. They are unrepresented at national level, their concerns are not being adequately addressed and, to make matters worse, they are governed from Westminster by a party which no more win an English election than fly (and I wish they would).
Sadly, this can only lead to knee jerk reaction politics: a rise in English nationalism and the hunt for a bogeyman. The ID of the bogeyman will depend on the political positioning but you can bet your bottom dollar he will be foreign. The democratically minded will probably turn on the EU while the less moderate will turn on anyone who is not white, Anglo Saxon and somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan.
You may have noticed some of us older Scots posting that we recognise much of the anger, powerlessness and fear that we see on the "English" blogs.
We went through that rather ugly phase in the 1970s. Actually, Thatcher maybe did us a favour, by demonstrating so thoroughly that it was the constitutional settlement which made us have these reactions.
On Brian Taylor's blog we have a young student Tory who ventured onto Nick Robinson's blog to argue for the EU. He came back quite shocked at his first exposure to the atavistic replies he got (similar to what we see on MM). He described them as "insane".
While I still think that Scotland would vote for some form of Confederal system for the UK (at least as an interim measure), were they given the chance. I am increasingly sure that the 30 year time-gap between "English" and "Scottish" political thinking (obviously I generalise) may be too great to allow such a move to happen.
(Have a look at the History Today article I referred to in my #355 on MM.)
oldnat -
You may or may not agree with me but I fear there is a danger of confusion here (not, I may say, on your part).
There is a UK domestic constitutional issue which needs resolution within the Union and is completely academic to the wider European debate (providing that the democratic credentials of member states set out in the Treaty of Rome are not compromised). Quite separately, there is the issue of the relationship between the Union and the EU.
If the Union continues in it's present form - which from my point of view would be the least satisfactory option - then the UK as a whole has to decide collectively how or indeed if it fits into the European project. If the Union ends - which I think is on the cards to a much greater degree than die hard Unionists would care to admit - again it is relatively simple. The component nations will simply engage in separate negotiations with the EU.
It is the confederal option that we both appear to favour which poses the problem. It is the classic chicken and egg question. Do we decide collectively on the European question and then go forward with domestic constitutional reform assuming a predetermined policy with which one or more component states might not be satisfied or do we establish the extent of regional autonomy first and proceed from there?
I say that these are separate issues for the simple reason that the British people are not going to be collectively consulted about the EU in a meaningful way unless the issue of Parliamentary sovereignty in respect of England is addressed first. There is clearly an appetite for popular consultation but it it becomes meaningless if the Union then proceeds to split.
The time has certainly come to clear the fog of the European debate but do we do so collectively or do we have the period of introspection first?
aye_write said...
threnodio,
I can't see a confederal option being workable.
The differences between the component parts will cause problems - their size, demographic, borders, culture and identity, economies, even past histories! etc.)
Like children in a family, they won't all want the same things, and high on their own new found sovereignty, they won't want to compromise. Result, squabble.
Am I bleak? Maybe.
But it's good, because should such an option be considered and tried out, these differences and the amplification of them which will result, causing the discord I predict, will only serve to confirm the need in the electorate's eye for full independence, which is the only sensible option, in my view.
However, down the road we must travel... :-)
threnodio
chickens and eggs indeed!
The problem only exists if we are trying to define an "endzone". I prefer to see the process as a journey (which will take far longer than my lifetime!)
I have a dream! (as someone once said) and that consists of a world community of nations/peoples (call them what you like) who enjoy an ascending (or descending) set of political structures which match their various identities (of course, there are conflicts - a primary "British" identity reduces my primary "Scottish" identity, and a Shetlander may have the same problem with me).
Confederal structures (with a bottom-up "pooling" of sovereignty) seem to me to allow such conflicts to be resolved.
I don't see the EU being able to operate as a single entity in foreign affairs and defence in the foreseeable future (although that's what I'd like to see eventually. Currently it would also be far too dangerous to include some of the Eastern European states such as the Ukraine, whose population is no more homogenous than the UK due to its borders being defined by Stalin). It's on that basis that I see the current UK continuing to have a role in these areas.
I've posted before that the current anger and frustration of the English is very reminiscent of the Scots in the 1970s. It's not a nice phase to go through, but I think they'll get past it as most/many/(well at least me and others on BT's blog) Scots have.
The need is to manage the transition. Change is always difficult, and there's a lot of good management theory about which describes how this is best handled to take account of the inevitable emotional reactions.
Post a Comment